Lab 3: Testing Solution

Description

Objective

In this lab, you will expand your skills in developing test cases.

Working alone or in a group of 2, you will create test cases for a program that creates a leader board for a sports league.

You are not required to develop code for the test cases or to develop test input data for your test cases.

Preparation

You are going to help manage the leader board for a local sports league. The teams play against one another and the leader board is created by ordering the teams from most winning to least winning. Speci cally, the rst team on the leader board has the most game wins. If a tie happens between teams then the order of tie-breaking, in order of precedence, is:

most games won most games tied

most points scored by the team

highest di erence of points scored to points lost most games played

lexicographic order of the team names

You will be writing test cases for a class for this problem. The methods in the class are as follows:

public boolean addTeam(String teamName) Adds the given team name as one team in the league. Returns true if the team was added to the league. Returns false if the team is already in the league or if any problem arose with the addition.

public boolean recordGameOutcome(String team1, String team2, int scoreTeam1, int scoreTeam2) Record that team1 played team2 and that the ending score was scoreTeam1 for team 1 and scoreTeam2

for team 2. Return true if the game was recorded. Return false if the game was not recorded or if any problem arose with the recording.

public String createLeaderBoard() Create a string that is the leader board for the league. The leader board lists all of the teams in the league in the order of most-successful team to least-successful team, based on game outcomes, as described earlier. Each line of the leader board string is as follows:

team name (use 15 columns)

number of games won (use 2 columns) number of games lost (use 2 columns) number of games tied (use 2 columns)

points scored by the team (use 4 columns)

points scored against the team (use 4 columns) Include one space between each column.

There will also be a header row, with titles Team, W, L, T, +, and -, all right justi ed except \Team”.

The league has space for a maximum of 24 teams.

Given the following data for recordGameOutcome (4 method invocations)

“Anchor”, “Salty”, 15, 12

“RC”, “Kitchen Party”, 9, 11

“Anchor”, “RC”, 12, 7

“Salty”, “Kitchen Party”, 6, 0

We get the following leader board
Team	W	L	T	+
Anchor	2	0	0	27	19
S a l t y	1	1	0	18	15
Kitchen Party	1	1	0	11	15
RC	0	2	0	16	23

Resources

None required

Procedure

Set-up

1. Ensure that all in your group understand and agree upon the intention of the problem. Do not make assumptions on how someone will implement a program to solve this problem.

Lab steps

Part 1 – Understand the problem

1. Clarify any ambiguities that your team may have about the problem. Record these clari cations.

2. Identify the boundary conditions that exist in the problem statement. Record these boundaries.

3. Outline the type of control ow that any implementation for the problem will need to follow, based on the problem statement. Record these ows.

4. De ne what would be perceived as the \normal” order in which methods would be invoked for the problem.

Part 2 – Create test cases

1. Identify a set of input validation tests for each method as well as the expected outcome for each case.

2. Identify a set of boundary tests for these boundary cases.

3. Identify a set of control ow tests.

4. Identify a set of data ow tests based on your \normal” order.

Questions

How, if at all, would input validation change if you were getting input from a user interface rather than as parameters to methods?

Explain whether or not boundary cases exist beyond checking the incoming input values. How does the idea of \control ow” change between black box tests and white box tests? Should all permutations of methods result in data ow tests? Explain.

Reporting

1. In one le, list

The members of your team.

The clari cations and reporting from part 1. The tests from part 2, divided by test type.

How complete you think that your test cases are. The answers from the Questions section of the lab.

2. Generate a PDF from the document.

3. Submit the PDF in Brightspace in the Lab/Lab 3 section of the course page in Brightspace.

Assessment

The assessment will be on a letter grade and will re ect how well you broke down the problem, developed tests, and, most importantly, saw how to take the work done in this lab to broaden it to other contexts (the Questions section).

Letter grade

Problem clari cations

Extent

of

the

test

Awareness of the ca-

Awareness on using

cases and classi ca-

pabilities

of

current

the test structures in

tion (main weight)

tests

broader contexts

A

(Excellent)

Problem is now clear

Considerable

non-

Demonstrates a good

Clear idea of changes

and

good assump-

overlapping

tests

sense

for

what

the

to control and

data

tions were made

made for all elements

tests

and

testing

ows for testing

of the

program

and

approaches can

do.

correctly classi ed

Knows how variations

happen

B

(Good)

Confusing

problem

Considerable

tests

Demonstrates a good

Knows

that

the

aspects

identi ed.

made

for

the whole

sense

for

the

testing

control or data ow

Not

all

with

good

problem,

though

approaches. May not

changes

might

im-

conclusions

some

overlap,

and

appreciate

the varia-

pact testing, but not

well classi ed

tions

spelled out well

C

(Satisfactory)

Main

problem

ele-

Generally

well-tested

Has

a

reasonable

Appreciates that con-

ments identi ed for

methods and classi –

sense of how well the

trol and data ow

clari cation

cation is 75%

testing is going

tests can change, but

unsure how

D

(Marginal Pass)

Just a few problem el-

A small percentage of

Has a rough idea of

Seeing little change in

ements were clari ed

tests

made

for

most

how well

the

testing

the e ects of the ows

methods.

Unclear

would be, but some of

if classi cation helped

the logic is awed

guide them

F

(Inadequate)

Lots

of

ambiguity

Poor

testing of

the

Little

sense

on

how

Unsure

of even

the

remains

about

the

methods

and/or no

well testing is hap-

context of the ques-

problem

structure to case cre-

pening

tion

ation

4